NewStats: 3,262,364 , 8,176,934 topics. Date: Monday, 02 June 2025 at 12:42 AM l2e25

Maximus69:


One secret that most people are ignorant of is that 'REAL medical personnels themselves will never opt for a blood transfusion' because they know the menace that will result from it! Most strange illnesses emerging today are results of transfusing blood from one living creature to another...

This is not a position I am willing to entertain myself having been a recipient of blood transfusion which has kept me alive.

The point I'm concerned with is that JWs are free not to accept blood transfusion if they wish not to, and Olaadegbu could have served us better by posting the scientific evidence for blood transfusion instead of making this thread of his an anti-JW thread or making out the Bible is a medical journal.

budaatum:

You don't get it, do you? You sound like someone is forcing you to be a JW and refuse blood transfussion if you need it. I am saying, I have faith in your ability to not be so stupid!

Do let me know if my faith in you is misplaced please.

God bless you budaatum for this post!

Persons like OLAADEGBU don't know any other means of discrediting all the achievements of God's modern day servants so he's desperately looking for ways to 'say i will not them for so and so reasons' because from all indications, there is no other group that's standing up above all others spiritually speaking! Matthew 5:14-16

So he can no more hide his frustration, humiliation and intimidation by the impressive performance of this wonderful organization!

budaatum:

This is not a position I am willing to entertain myself having been a recipient of blood transfusion which has kept me alive.

The point I'm concerned with is that JWs are free not to accept blood transfusion if they wish not to, and Olaadegbu could have served us better by posting the scientific evidence for blood transfusion instead of making this thread of his an anti-JW thread or making out the Bible is a medical journal.

Everyone has his or her own personal experience in life!
I know of people who accepted blood transfusion and died in the process and those who refuses and still died, i know of those who have survived with or without blood transfusion.
So it's vice-versa, what i am saying is REAL medical personnels as in professionals themselves will never opt for a blood transfusion!
Please endeavour to ask them tactfully without given them a clue to guess why asking, but don't be offended after hearing from the horses mouth because you'll surely get annoyed discovering they've been hiding the TRUTH all this while!

Maximus69:

God bless you budaatum for this post!

Persons like OLAADEGBU don't know any other means of discrediting all the achievements of God's modern day servants so he's desperately looking for ways to 'say i will not them for so and so reasons' because from all indications, there is no other group that's standing up above all others spiritually speaking! Matthew 5:14-16

So he can no more hide his frustration, humiliation and intimidation by the impressive performance of this wonderful organization!

habitual lying™ max

wonderful organization' ha ha
many of it's followers including you often post with sarcasm,
which along with lying, is a language of the devil

some books on sarcasm:

Sarcasm: the language of the Devil

Sarcasm is the refuge of losers.

Sarcasm: the last defense of the truly witless.

Sarcasm is not the rapier of wit its wielders seem to believe it to be, but merely a club: it may, by dint of brute force, occasionally raise bruises, but it never cuts or pierces


losers, the truly witless
laugh, how true

Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Rev_21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev_20:15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

@bold, no that's not the bible

Maximus69:


Please endeavour to ask them tactfully without given them a clue to guess why asking, but don't be offended after hearing from the horses mouth because you'll surely get annoyed discovering they've been hiding the TRUTH all this while!

I don't need to ask anyone about blood transfusion Max. There is more than enough information out there if one bothers to do the research oneself, and the evidence very strongly suggests that blood transfusion has saved way many more lives than it has caused to be lost. I myself, and my mother, would have died through blood loss of both of us at my birth and we were saved by accepting the replenishment of blood we had lost.

Those who don't want any are free to decline it

budaatum:

I don't need to ask anyone about blood transfusion Max. There is more than enough information out there if one bothers to do the research oneself, and the evidence very strongly suggests that blood transfusion has saved way many more lives than it has caused to be lost. I myself, and my mother, would have died through blood loss of both of us at my birth and we were saved by accepting the replenishment of blood we had lost.

Those who don't want any are free to decline it

Well that's what makes the difference between JWs and others because we're to 'ascertain all things and cling to what is fine' before our God! 1Thessalonians 5:21

But everyone has the right to choose whatever pleases his/her own conscience! Philippians 4:8
Good morning!

OLAADEGBU:


Let's see the Watchtower's Position:

"Jehovah made a covenant with Noah following the Flood, and included therein was this command: "Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 9:4) The Law given through Moses contained these restrictions: "Eat neither fat nor blood." "Eat no manner of blood." "Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh." (Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10, 11, 14; 19:26) And in the Greek Scriptures the instruction to Christians is: "The holy spirit and we ourselves have favoured adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication."—Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29; 21:25, NW."

To be continued...

The Watchtower magazine of October 1, 2008, explained:

"Jehovah's Witnesses seek the best medical care available to them and their family . However, they seek nonblood medical management. Why? Their stand is based on a fundamental law that God gave to mankind. Just after the Flood of Noah's day, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat the flesh of animals. God imposed this one restriction: They were not to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) All humans of all races descended from Noah, so this law is binding on all of mankind. It was never rescinded. Over eight centuries later, God reaffirmed that law to the nation of Israel, explaining that blood is sacred, representing the soul, or life itself. (Leviticus 17:14) Over 1,500 years later, the Christian apostles commanded all Christians to "keep abstaining . . . from blood."—Acts 15:29. To Jehovah's Witnesses, it is clearly impossible to abstain from blood while taking it into the body in a transfusion. They therefore insist on alternative treatments."

According to the Watchtower, Genesis 9 established a law that people were not to eat blood, a law binding on all mankind. This law was echoed and expounded in the law of Moses (especially in Leviticus 17) and affirmed as still binding on New Testament believers in Acts 15. It is then argued that putting blood in one's veins is no different than eating it, and so the Christian should reject all blood transfusions.

To be continued....

OLAADEGBU:


The Watchtower magazine of October 1, 2008, explained:

"Jehovah's Witnesses seek the best medical care available to them and their family . However, they seek nonblood medical management. Why? Their stand is based on a fundamental law that God gave to mankind. Just after the Flood of Noah's day, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat the flesh of animals. God imposed this one restriction: They were not to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) All humans of all races descended from Noah, so this law is binding on all of mankind. It was never rescinded. Over eight centuries later, God reaffirmed that law to the nation of Israel, explaining that blood is sacred, representing the soul, or life itself. (Leviticus 17:14) Over 1,500 years later, the Christian apostles commanded all Christians to "keep abstaining . . . from blood."—Acts 15:29. To Jehovah's Witnesses, it is clearly impossible to abstain from blood while taking it into the body in a transfusion. They therefore insist on alternative treatments."

According to the Watchtower, Genesis 9 established a law that people were not to eat blood, a law binding on all mankind. This law was echoed and expounded in the law of Moses (especially in Leviticus 17) and affirmed as still binding on New Testament believers in Acts 15. It is then argued that putting blood in one's veins is no different than eating it, and so the Christian should reject all blood transfusions.

To be continued....

Survey of the Biblical Texts

There are two primary Old Testament texts that Watchtowers publications cite:

Genesis 9:3-7: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."

Leviticus 17:10-14: "And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'"

In addition, there are many other statements in the Law and a few in the prophets and historical books that restate or reinforce the existence and importance of this law forbidding the eating of a slaughtered animal without first draining the blood.

The New Testament also mentions this three times in the book of Acts, all related to the decision of the Christian leaders at Jerusalem, who declared that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or come under the Law of Moses. They then wrote a letter to the Gentile churches stating the following:

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication" (Acts 15:28-29).

In context, the command to abstain from blood and things strangeld (i.e. things killed without draining the blood) harkens back to this same idea: don't eat animal meat without draining the blood from the carcass. Christians have debated for all of church history whether all of these commands in Acts were meant to be universally binding or whether some were temporary concessions for the sake of unity between Jews and Gentiles in the churches. For the sake of argument, we will assume for the moment that these commands do fully apply to all believers today and that Christians should not eat meat without first draining the blood. Even if that is the case, does having anything to do with medical blood transfusions donated by living human beings at no harm to themselves? This is the question on which the whole Watchtower position hangs.

https://carm.org/are-blood-transfusions-sinful

Smartini:
I resemble JW for your eye? Another stupid assertion. Oga, lo wa ise se ... Stop being a Nairaland evangelist. Jesus went from city to city and from house to house. You're sitting in your one room apartment typing with your Itel phone forming online evangelist. If only winning souls were that easy, then Jesus would just sit in the synagogue every Sabbath while everyone comes to him. Grow up, man ... Leave the JWs. They're not the cause of your misfortune in life. Enough said.

Abeg wetin you dey take?

Maximus69:


Abeg wetin you dey take?

[quote author=OLAADEGBU post=80175551][/quote]

Abraham offered Isaac almost the same way and when God stopped him to replace with a ram, no BLOOD TRANFUSION was carried out Sir!

Maximus69:


Abeg wetin you dey take?

A chilled bottle of Orijin or Ace Roots will do, Sir

Maximus69:

Well that's what makes the difference between JWs and others because we're to 'ascertain all things and cling to what is fine' before our God! 1Thessalonians 5:21

But everyone has the right to choose whatever pleases his/her own conscience! Philippians 4:8
Good morning!

So, you think those who advocate blood transfusion do not "ascertain all things and cling to what is fine"? Or is it that saving lifes by the knowledge that God has given us or allowed us to have is not "fine before God"?

Do you seriously think we are so stupid that we would cling to blood transfusion if we had not ascertained it's goodness Max?

[quote author=OLAADEGBU post=80175551][/quote]
I'm still not happy with you and this thread and blame you for every single word I write in it, but if Jesus can shed his blood for me I'm going to call up and go donate my less worthy blood to help save someone else's life. Anyone who merely talks about it and doesn't go and donate their blood is a resounding gong and a clanging cymbal.

budaatum:

I'm still not happy with you and this thread and blame you for every single word I write in it, but if Jesus can shed his blood for me I'm going to call up and go donate my less worthy blood to help save someone else's life. Anyone who merely talks about it and doesn't go and donate their blood is a resounding gong and a clanging cymbal.

If Jesus shed His precious blood to give me life, what stops me from giving life (blood) to those who need it to survive?

budaatum:

So, you think those who advocate blood transfusion do not "ascertain all things and cling to what is fine"? Or is it that saving lifes by the knowledge that God has given us or allowed us to have is not "fine before God"?

Do you seriously think we are so stupid that we would cling to blood transfusion if we had not ascertained it's goodness Max?

You're mistaken here buda because it's not about what is physical like blood transfusion, it's spiritual.

Jesus came to save but it's only those who EXERCISE faith by their 100% compliance to Jesus' teachings that his blood can work for.

Jesus can't save everyone, that's why he himself said some despite being sinners needing forgiveness are never going to be forgiven { Matthew 12:31-32} because the REAL forgiveness comes as a result of something unique! John 3:16

Sorry buda this has nothing to do with giving out what God said is not to be tampered with 'BLOOD'! Act 15:29
So let them donate all the blood in their veins, it's certainly not what our God requires from his faithful worshiper it's more than that! 1Corinthians 13:3

Maximus69:


You're mistaken here buda because it's not about what is physical like blood transfusion, it's spiritual.

Jesus came to save but it's only those who EXERCISE faith by their 100% compliance to Jesus' teachings that his blood can work for.

Jesus can't save everyone, that's why he himself said some despite being sinners needing forgiveness are never going to be forgiven { Matthew 12:31-32} because the REAL forgiveness comes as a result of something unique! John 3:16

Sorry buda this has nothing to do with giving out what God said is not to be tampered with 'BLOOD'! Act 15:29
So let them donate all the blood in their veins, it's certainly not what our God requires from his faithful worshiper it's more than that! 1Corinthians 13:3

What an irony.

If it's not about the physical blood, you would not mind a physical blood transfusion, and last time I checked, no one advocated a spiritual blood transfusion!

I think God might be requiring a different thing from you to that which God requires of me. And I must say that I'm beginning to understand the anti JW doctrine threads now, though I'm still not happy with you Olaadegbu, except I'm no god so disregard my unhappiness, but I'm still not happy with you at all, except I'm no God, I repeat, so ignore buda!

As I said Max, I and my ma are alive because we received blood we lost when I was being born and we would both have died if we hadn't received it, so you might understand how my own God cannot be against blood transfusion unless that God would rather I be dead, and if that were the case, I don't think such a God can be my God since that God would rather I be dead, and I cannot worship a God that would rather I had not lived the many years that I have already lived, nor can I be worshipping God if I had died at birth.

As to who would be saved or not you perhaps need be aware that it is God who decides, and its not because one worked for it, as some would say, but by God's Grace. And I'm talking from the perspective of a person saved from death at birth with a mother saved too through blood transfusion and who's 80th birthday was recently celebrated and which was attended by numerous people she had positively impacted all through her life and especially after she gave birth to me.

And please do stop twisting scripture to fit your opinion! If I wanted to boast it would not be about giving my blood, but about donating my entire body once I have done with it, out of the love for my fellow human beings who will live because of my donation!


(OLAADEGBU, you asked if you had insulted me or been rude to me earlier in this thread and I did not respond! The answer is no, you have not been rude nor insulted me. I still blame you for every word I write here though!)

Maximus69:


You're mistaken here buda because it's not about what is physical like blood transfusion, it's spiritual.

Jesus came to save but it's only those who EXERCISE faith by their 100% compliance to Jesus' teachings that his blood can work for.

Jesus can't save everyone, that's why he himself said some despite being sinners needing forgiveness are never going to be forgiven { Matthew 12:31-32} because the REAL forgiveness comes as a result of something unique! John 3:16

Sorry buda this has nothing to do with giving out what God said is not to be tampered with 'BLOOD'! Act 15:29
So let them donate all the blood in their veins, it's certainly not what our God requires from his faithful worshiper it's more than that! 1 Corinthians 13:3

Buda everyone today is alive because God created us to be, but as for blood transfusion his word says NO for his servants. We're to abstain from blood!
YES! people died/people survived without blood transfusion, as for Jehovah's Witnesses we'll live or die for whatever he asked us to do because we're sure of his power to resurrect us in his own due time!
Thanks!

Maximus69:
Buda everyone today is alive because God created us to be, but as for blood transfusion his word says NO for his servants. We're to abstain from blood!

It is your own understanding Max that God says no to blood transfusion, and as you can clearly see, some do not agree with your own interpretation.

I could argue a position of "abstain from blood" means don't even eat meat since in order to get meat one must shed blood. Or would you like to argue that spilling the blood of an animal and eating its meat fulfils your "abstain from blood" position?

Are you vegetarian Max?

budaatum:

It is your own understanding Max that God says no to blood transfusion, and as you can clearly see, some do not agree with your own interpretation.

I could argue a position of "abstain from blood" means don't even eat meat since in order to get meat one must shed blood. Or would you like to argue that spilling the blood of an animal and eating its meat fulfils your "abstain from blood" position?

Are you vegetarian Max?

Never mind buda,
You've concluded you're alive because of donator's blood and i say no it's because JEHOVAH created us, so you're free to choose between the two.
¤Those who believe God approves blood transfusion to preserve life!
¤Those who believe God detests blood transfusion to preserve life!

You can see the line and there's no sitting on the fence, so choose where you're going to be!

Maximus69:


You can see the line and there's no sitting on the fence, so choose where you're going to be!

You fail to accept the evidence you see with your own eyes Max, about whether I sit on a fence or not, which I must say is rather disturbing because it implies a willingness to blind or allow oneself to be blinded. But let me help you and perhaps you might see whether this is a choice I have not already made.

I would think if God took the attitude to blood transfusion that you claim, I and my mother would not have lived when blood was transfused into us, but I and my mother live because of the blood that was transfused into us after losing our own blood through bleeding when I was being born. A reasoning individual would agree that by accepting blood transfusion we already made the choice to live instead of sitting on a fence drawing imaginary lines they wish to believe.

Do know that I do not mind whether you accept blood transfusion or not, but if you lived in a country with laws, we would not allow you to impose such doctrines on your own child and would go as far as taking said child off you because we would consider you to be an irresponsible ignorant parent. We face the same issues when some refuse to accept immunisation thereby putting whole communities at risk of dying from avoidable illnesses through their own stupidity.

As a wise person once said, "That there should one Man die ignorant who had capacity for Knowledge, this I call a tragedy." _{Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, Bk. III, ch. 4.} I'm certain you could give scriptural to this very sentiment.

I am rather amused at how you attempt to avoid my question though.

Is a person who eats meat abstaining from blood?

A simple yes or no would suffice, though I would like an explanation for your answer too.

budaatum:

You fail to accept the evidence you see with your own eyes Max, about whether I sit on a fence or not, which I must say is rather disturbing because it implies a willingness to blind or allow oneself to be blinded. But let me help you and perhaps you might see whether this is a choice I have not already made.

I would think if God took the attitude to blood transfusion that you claim, I and my mother would not have lived when blood was transfused into us, but I and my mother live because of the blood that was transfused into us after losing our own blood through bleeding when I was being born. A reasoning individual would agree that by accepting blood transfusion we already made the choice to live instead of sitting on a fence drawing imaginary lines they wish to believe.

Do know that I do not mind whether you accept blood transfusion or not, but if you lived in a country with laws, we would not allow you to impose such doctrines on your own child and would go as far as taking said child off you because we would consider you to be an irresponsible ignorant parent. We face the same issues when some refuse to accept immunisation thereby putting whole communities at risk of dying from avoidable illnesses through their own stupidity.

As a wise person once said, "That there should one Man die ignorant who had capacity for Knowledge, this I call a tragedy." _{Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, Bk. III, ch. 4.} I'm certain you could give scriptural to this very sentiment.

I am rather amused at how you attempt to avoid my question though.

Is a person who eats meeat abstaining from blood?

A simple yes or no would suffice, though I would like an explanation for your answer too.

How i wish your friend Tatime is following this thread!

Please budaatum, there's no need pestering someone to agree on this issue, the line has been drawn.
So just choose!

Maximus69:


So just choose!

As I already stated, "You fail to accept the evidence you see with your own eyes Max, about whether I sit on a fence or not, which I must say is rather disturbing because it implies a willingness to blind or allow oneself to be blinded."

In lay language, buda has already chosen.

budaatum:

buda has already chosen.

Great!
So continue to enjoy the warmth of your fellow believers!
God bless you!

Maximus69:


So continue to enjoy the warmth of your fellow believers!

If buda were a believer buda would believe your version or that which some others say buda must believe instead of using buda's very own brain and mind and senses and being that the Lord God Almighty has given buda and which shall be [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/age/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV]taken away[/url] from buda if buda uses them not!

Don't patronize me Max. You know very well that buda is definitely not a "believer".

budaatum:

If buda were a believer buda would believe your version or that which some others say buda must believe instead of using buda's very own brain and mind and senses and being that the Lord God Almighty has given buda and which shall be [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/age/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV]taken away[/url] from buda if buda uses them not!

Don't patronize me Max. You know very well that buda is definitely not a "believer".

Great!

Well this is about BELIEVE.
It's not a case for unbelievers, the OP assumes he's a believer too which makes you neither here nor there on the issue!
So leave the case for those who profess to believe! 2Thessalonians 3:2

Maximus69:

Great!

Well this is about BELIEVE.
It's not a case for unbelievers, the OP assumes he's a believer too which makes you neither here nor there on the issue!
So leave the case for those who profess to believe! 2Thessalonians 3:2

Nice try Max, but my response is a categorical no, I will not "leave the case for those who profess to believe" especially when those beliefs are based on false and erroneous understandings and when the holder of those beliefs refuses to keep them to themselves! Op will tell you that I have challenged his beliefs too, and in fact was challenging him before you arrived believing what he challenged on this thread as you might understand from my post below. You had the choice to avoid this thread but chose instead to own it!

budaatum:
We should start a thread titled:

Olaadegbu is it sinful to constantly go about opening threads condemning your neighbours?

Except he'd likely claim God told him to go about constantly condemning his neighbours!

Those who wish their beliefs not challenged will keep their beliefs in their heads where beliefs should rightly be kept, for as soon as they are voiced on a public forum someone is bound to challenge them as has been done here!

OLAADEGBU:


Survey of the Biblical Texts

There are two primary Old Testament texts that Watchtowers publications cite:

Genesis 9:3-7: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."

Leviticus 17:10-14: "And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'"

In addition, there are many other statements in the Law and a few in the prophets and historical books that restate or reinforce the existence and importance of this law forbidding the eating of a slaughtered animal without first draining the blood.

The New Testament also mentions this three times in the book of Acts, all related to the decision of the Christian leaders at Jerusalem, who declared that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or come under the Law of Moses. They then wrote a letter to the Gentile churches stating the following:

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication" (Acts 15:28-29).

In context, the command to abstain from blood and things strangeld (i.e. things killed without draining the blood) harkens back to this same idea: don't eat animal meat without draining the blood from the carcass. Christians have debated for all of church history whether all of these commands in Acts were meant to be universally binding or whether some were temporary concessions for the sake of unity between Jews and Gentiles in the churches. For the sake of argument, we will assume for the moment that these commands do fully apply to all believers today and that Christians should not eat meat without first draining the blood. Even if that is the case, does having anything to do with medical blood transfusions donated by living human beings at no harm to themselves? This is the question on which the whole Watchtower position hangs.

https://carm.org/are-blood-transfusions-sinful

Are Transfusions Equivalent to Eating Blood?

The whole position of the Jehovah's Witnesses hinges on the assertion that blood transfusions are just another form of eating blood. They contend straightforwardly that you are still sustaining yourself by putting another living thing's blood in your body. The fact that you are not doing this through the digestive system is mere semantic quibbling. When someone cannot eat due to illness or injury, we feed them intravenously, so how is this really any different? They reinforce this with analogies like that of a man whose doctor tells him to abstain from alcohol. Would it be okay for the man to stop drinking, but to inject alcohol directly into his veins? In this way they attempt to show that, behind the apparent differences, eating blood and receiving a blood transfusion are in fact variations of the same thing.

Medically this is not at all the case. If you eat blood, you break it down into nutrients, which your body then uses. What makes it to your own blood stream is not blood at all. It has been completely broken down like any other food. That is what eating something is. Jesus Himself speaks of eating in Mark 7:19 specifically and necessarily as "what goes into the stomach and is eliminated" (or literally, "ed out into the latrine" ). A transfusion is quite different. The blood stays blood. It does not nourish you. It does what your blood does. It carries oxygen that your body receives from your lungs and nutrients that your body receives from food and takes them throughout your body, but the blood does not provide you anything from itself. In this way, it is different even from "feeding" through an IV, which puts simple nutrients straight into your blood to be carried about and used. Notice that even this kind of "feeding" is not actually food at all, but rather substitutes what food would normally provide for you. You could not liquefy chicken, spinach, or carrots and inject them into your veins. That would kill you. Food needs to be digested. That's what it means to eat. Intravenous "feeding" is not really feeding at all, but a temporary substitute for feeding. How much less, then, can a blood transfusion be considered eating, which does not even so much as a substitute for eating at all! For all these reasons, medically speaking, eating blood and transfusing blood are not remotely the same thing.

They are not the same thing by intent either. The alcoholic in the Jehovah's Witness' example, who tries to get around his doctor's orders by injecting alcohol into his veins, is attempting to accomplish the same thing as drinking the alcohol. The patient receiving a blood transfusion, however, is not seeking a meal. He is not satisfying his hunger. The situation is completely different. Yes, you could say very generally that both are using blood to sustain their body, but this is far too vague to be meaningful. If I go to a doctor for surgery, his hands will literally enter my body to cure me of some ailment. I am using the doctor to sustain my body. That, however, does not make surgery the same as cannibalism. I did not eat the doctor's hands, even though his hands entered my body to sustain me. The situation is simply not comparable.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Scriptures root the command in the sacredness of life, not in the sacredness of blood in its own right. Genesis 9 allows animals' blood to be shed, but we must not eat the blood. We can only eat the meat. Human blood, however, must not be shed at all, all of this is because life is in the blood. Now, let's return again to the idea of surgery. If a doctor cuts a man open, causing him to bleed, but does so out of true necessity to save his life, is this a violation of Genesis 9? Is this what it means to sin by shedding a man's blood? Of course not! The issue here has to do with violence and slaughter. If I slaughter an animal to eat it, one can argue that the command is still in force saying that I must not eat its blood. This command, however, is certainly not saying that I cannot freely give some of my own blood, at no harm or injury to myself, to save another man's life. Neither life suffers violence, but rather one life is saved at no harm to the other. If we were killing men and draining their blood to save others, that would be another matter, but the process of some living men freely giving of their own life blood so that other men can stay alive does not equate to violence, slaughter, or the desecration of life. If anything, it upholds the sacredness of life and honours the great value of the dying person who is made in the image of God.

budaatum:

Nice try Max, but my response is a categorical no, I will not "leave the case for those who profess to believe" especially when those beliefs are based on false and erroneous understandings and when the holder of those beliefs refuses to keep them to themselves! Op will tell you that I have challenged his beliefs too, and in fact was challenging him before you arrived believing what he challenged on this thread as you might understand from my post below. You had the choice to avoid this thread but chose instead to own it!



Those who wish their beliefs not challenged will keep their beliefs in their heads where beliefs should rightly be kept, for as soon as they are voiced on a public forum someone is bound to challenge them as has been done here!

Keep on challenging and receiving response!

OLAADEGBU:


Are Transfusions Equivalent to Eating Blood?

The whole position of the Jehovah's Witnesses hinges on the assertion that blood transfusions are just another form of eating blood. They contend straightforwardly that you are still sustaining yourself by putting another living thing's blood in your body. The fact that you are not doing this through the digestive system is mere semantic quibbling. When someone cannot eat due to illness or injury, we feed them intravenously, so how is this really any different? They reinforce this with analogies like that of a man whose doctor tells him to abstain from alcohol. Would it be okay for the man to stop drinking, but to inject alcohol directly into his veins? In this way they attempt to show that, behind the apparent differences, eating blood and receiving a blood transfusion are in fact variations of the same thing.

Medically this is not at all the case. If you eat blood, you break it down into nutrients, which your body then uses. What makes it to your own blood stream is not blood at all. It has been completely broken down like any other food. That is what eating something is. Jesus Himself speaks of eating in Mark 7:19 specifically and necessarily as "what goes into the stomach and is eliminated" (or literally, "ed out into the latrine" ). A transfusion is quite different. The blood stays blood. It does not nourish you. It does what your blood does. It carries oxygen that your body receives from your lungs and nutrients that your body receives from food and takes them throughout your body, but the blood does not provide you anything from itself. In this way, it is different even from "feeding" through an IV, which puts simple nutrients straight into your blood to be carried about and used. Notice that even this kind of "feeding" is not actually food at all, but rather substitutes what food would normally provide for you. You could not liquefy chicken, spinach, or carrots and inject them into your veins. That would kill you. Food needs to be digested. That's what it means to eat. Intravenous "feeding" is not really feeding at all, but a temporary substitute for feeding. How much less, then, can a blood transfusion be considered eating, which does not even so much as a substitute for eating at all! For all these reasons, medically speaking, eating blood and transfusing blood are not remotely the same thing.

They are not the same thing by intent either. The alcoholic in the Jehovah's Witness' example, who tries to get around his doctor's orders by injecting alcohol into his veins, is attempting to accomplish the same thing as drinking the alcohol. The patient receiving a blood transfusion, however, is not seeking a meal. He is not satisfying his hunger. The situation is completely different. Yes, you could say very generally that both are using blood to sustain their body, but this is far too vague to be meaningful. If I go to a doctor for surgery, his hands will literally enter my body to cure me of some ailment. I am using the doctor to sustain my body. That, however, does not make surgery the same as cannibalism. I did not eat the doctor's hands, even though his hands entered my body to sustain me. The situation is simply not comparable.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Scriptures root the command in the sacredness of life, not in the sacredness of blood in its own right. Genesis 9 allows animals' blood to be shed, but we must not eat the blood. We can only eat the meat. Human blood, however, must not be shed at all, all of this is because life is in the blood. Now, let's return again to the idea of surgery. If a doctor cuts a man open, causing him to bleed, but does so out of true necessity to save his life, is this a violation of Genesis 9? Is this what it means to sin by shedding a man's blood? Of course not! The issue here has to do with violence and slaughter. If I slaughter an animal to eat it, one can argue that the command is still in force saying that I must not eat its blood. This command, however, is certainly not saying that I cannot freely give some of my own blood, at no harm or injury to myself, to save another man's life. Neither life suffers violence, but rather one life is saved at no harm to the other. If we were killing men and draining their blood to save others, that would be another matter, but the process of some living men freely giving of their own life blood so that other men can stay alive does not equate to violence, slaughter, or the desecration of life. If anything, it upholds the sacredness of life and honours the great value of the dying person who is made in the image of God.

Conclusion

It is a noble thing to be willing to die rather than do evil; however, it is a tragic thing when a false teaching and misrepresentation of Scripture causes lives to be needlessly lost. This is, unfortunately, the case with the Jehovah's Witness doctrine on blood transfusions. Scripture, not to mention medical science and common sense, teaches us that eating blood and receiving a blood transfusion is not practically or morally equivalent; they are, in fact, the opposite. It is a heavy thing to consider how those who have promoted this false teaching will have to give an before a holy God of the lives it has needlessly cost if they do not repent.